Gittin 19
איכא בינייהו שמות מובהקין
Where he and the first Tanna differed was in the case where the names are obviously heathen.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon holding that no danger can arise from this of heathens also being asked to witness the delivery of the Get, while the Rabbis held that there was such a danger. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
והא חזרה דאורייתא וקתני
But what of the point about retracting, which [invalidates the Get even] according to the Torah, and yet is reckoned in this passage? — The proper answer [to the original question] is that only those points are reckoned which did not apply to betrothals, but not such as are found in connection with betrothals also.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The law of 'special intention' and in regard to mehubar applies to writs of betrothals equally with writs of divorce, whereas the declaration, 'In my presence it was written, etc.' is limited to Get as explained supra 2b-3a. Similarly the validity of the signature of a Samaritan witness is limited to Get (v. infra 10b); nor would the Rabbis invalidate a writ of betrothal originating in a heathen court, provided Jewish witnesses were present at the delivery.] ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אלא כי קתני מילתא דליתא בקידושין מילתא דאיתא בקידושין לא קתני
But this very point of retracting applies to betrothals also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a man gives a written agreement of betrothal to a bearer, he can withdraw it so long as it has not been delivered. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
והא חזרה גופה איתא בקידושין בשליחות בעל כורחה דבגירושין איתא ובקידושין ליתא:
— We are dealing here with a case where the whole commission is to be carried out without the consent of the recipient; this is possible in the case of divorces but not of betrothals.
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל גט שיש עליו עד כותי פסול חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים מעשה שהביאו לפני ר"ג לכפר עותנאי גט אשה והיו עדיו עדי כותים והכשיר:
<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. NO DOCUMENT ATTESTED BY THE SIGNATURE OF A CUTHEAN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samaritan. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
דתניא מצת כותי מותרת ואדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח רבי אלעזר אוסר לפי שאין בקיאין בדקדוקי מצות רשב"ג אומר כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה כותים הרבה מדקדקין בה יותר מישראל
UNLESS IT IS A WRIT OF DIVORCE OR A WRIT OF EMANCIPATION. IT IS RELATED THAT A WRIT OF DIVORCE WAS ONCE BROUGHT BEFORE RABBAN GAMALIEL AT KEFAR 'UTHNAI<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Identified with Kefr Kud (Capar Cotani) on the border of Galilee and Samaria. V. Klein, Beitrage p. 29, n. 2.] ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ואי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אי דאחזוק אפי' שאר שטרות נמי אי דלא אחזוק אפילו גט אשה נמי לא
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who is [the Tanna] of our Mishnah? For it cannot be either the first Tanna, or R. Eleazar or Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel [in the following Baraitha]: For it has been taught: 'It is permissible to eat [on Passover] unleavened bread made by a Cuthean, and the eating of such bread satisfies the requirement of the Passover.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the unleavened bread eaten on the first night should be expressly prepared for it in accordance with the words, And ye shall watch the unleavened bread (Ex. XII, 17). ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
וכי תימא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא ודאחזוק בהא ולא אחזוק בהא אי הכי מאי איריא חד אפילו תרי נמי אלמה אמר רבי אלעזר לא הכשירו בו אלא עד אחד כותי בלבד
R. Eleazar forbids [the eating of such bread], because [the Samaritans] are not familiar with the minutiae of the precepts. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says that in all the precepts which the Cutheans do observe they are much more particular than the Jews themselves.' Whom now does our Mishnah follow? Shall I say the first Tanna? In that case other documents also should be valid [if attested by a Cuthean]. Shall I say R. Eleazar? In that case a writ of divorce should also be invalid. Shall I say Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel? In that case, if they observe [the regulations of documents], then other documents attested by them should also be valid, and if they do not observe [these regulations], then even a writ of divorce attested by them should not he valid. And should you reply that in fact Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel is the authority and that our Mishnah holds that the Cutheans observe the regulations concerning writs of divorce and emancipation but not concerning other documents — in that case why [does the Mishnah] speak of one [Cuthean witness only]? [The Get should be equally valid] even if there were two;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if both witnesses were Samaritan and neither an Israelite. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
לעולם רבי אלעזר וכגון דחתים ישראל לבסוף
and if that were so, why has R. Eleazar said [that a Get of this kind] has been declared valid only if there is not more than one Cuthean signature to it? — The authority followed by our Mishnah is in fact R. Eleazar, and it speaks of the case where an Israelite signs last,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the Samaritan. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>